Qualitative vs Quantitative Training

Yesterday at work, I was browsing an email from active.com about triathlons, the same email/newsletter they send out each week with articles, races, etc.  Usually they aren't too packed with critical information, but this week's I really enjoyed, particularly an article on HR training.  It wasn't the fact that the author Jesse Kropelnicki of QT2 Systems mentioned some good tips on training with HR, but the reasoning behind it, and why some people choose to race and train without metrics.  (FYI, here's a link to the article.)

As a PhD student in the early stages of my research education, I am slowly learning about research design and measurement.  A LOT of planning goes into each and every study done (believe me, it's really incredible...).  To give an extremely broad summarization of just about every research study done, there are 2 types of studies:

1. Qualitative-  These studies look at measuring things that are difficult to associate a value with, like feelings, emotions, etc.
2. Quantitative- These studies look at analyzing specific things in each study, and are measured (aka a value is associated with an outcome).  Some easy examples would include strength and range of motion.

Both types of studies have their own strengths and weaknesses, and are valuable tools in the research world because researchers are able to measure and look at different outcomes, either specific or broad.

The article immediately caught my attention because it applied these basic research designs and principles to triathlon training!  Seriously, talk about hitting just about every one of my interests!  Had Kropelnicki mentioned the Jayhawks, I would have declared this to be the greatest article ever written!

Kropelnicki stated just like research, there are 2 types of racers: those who train with metrics (anything measurable and specifically defined), and those who go on feel.  Again like research, there are benefits and weaknesses to each approach.

The racers going on feel are using a qualitative approach to their training, relying on their body to tell them when to push the pace or slow down when training.  The greatest benefit to this approach is freedom.  Freedom from your Garmin, power meters, watch, and weekly volume.  You go based on how you are feeling at the moment, and have nothing to answer to.  This can lead to some great race experiences and results, and many professionals now go based on feel (and time vs distance). 

Although this is a great benefit, there are several shortcomings to this approach.  Tracking your training is difficult, and tracking progress vs decline in overall fitness is even more difficult.  Racing with this approach can have great results, but also extremely devastating impacts if you push too hard too early.  While this may not be as big of a deal in short sprints, this can lead to a DNF (did not finish), of a DFL (hmmm let's just say the last one to finish....) in longer races.

Those who train and race by measuring outcomes would be using a quantitative approach.  Pace, power on the bike, and heart rate during the swim/bike/run are just a few things that can be objectively measured throughout training sessions.  Those who use these metrics during racing and training have very specific training plans and structured workouts, and will be in specific HR zones or trying to maintain a specific power output for a specific amount of time.  Notice any key words?  Specific, specific, specific.....

Some benefits of this training style includes data!  Data makes it easy to see progress, improvements, or declines in performance.  Based on what you see, you can alter your training plans to fit your current needs.  Using this approach is also good for people just starting out because it gives you justifiable information based on how you feel.  An example for me involved recovery runs.  I always thought I was going pretty slow, but turns out my HR was close to zone 3, and sometimes zone 4.  This is WAY too high, meaning I was running too hard.  It may have been hurting my training... Lastly, the quantitative approach gives you some ideas for race day strategy.  Having a structured race plan with specific HR/Power/Pace zones will make sure you finish within a given time, without blowing up your legs too early in the race. 

There is one drastic downfall to this approach:  You are governed by your technology.  And it kinda sucks.  A lot of your freedom is gone.  You are constantly looking at your watch for pace, listening for beeps, making sure your power is in the right zone at the right time.  Every morning, you check your resting HR to make sure you aren't becoming overtrained, you load and analyze each workout... the list goes on and on.  Eventually, all this information tends to drag on the athlete, and could lead to burnout.

What I do:

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but I tend to follow a bit of both, but am becoming increasingly obsessed with the data and metrics produced by my Garmin during training.  I don't have a power meter (yet), so I guess it could be worse, but I still do follow a fairly strict plan for each workout.  I train with heart rate zones, specific pacing for specific miles during my runs, specific HR and cadence for my biking workouts, specific resistance for my trainer workouts, and specific splits for my swim workouts.  It takes a lot of time and preparation to make sure I know what I am supposed to be doing.  But in the end, this is what works for me.  And to keep me from going insane, I don't track my active recovery workouts, other than time and distance.  

For racing, I just unleash.  And I love it.  I spend all this time tracking my training, analyzing my results, altering my training plan, and come race day, I hold nothing back.  I don't look at my watch, I just try to chase people down.  I have yet to completely lose it on the run, but know that day could be coming.  The bike for me has been a challenge, and I will continue to evaluate my race strategies this winter to make sure I am on the track I want to be on. 

Shawnee Mission Park Triathlon:  No HR monitor, just a cheap ol' Timex on the other arm...

But wait?!  There's a Garmin now!  I know... I just wanted a sweet GPS map... And it was brand new!!!
Side note: Please don't analyze my pedal stroke.  It's getting better....

In 2012, though, I will be tracking HR/Speed/Cadence/Pace throughout all my races.  Here's why:  I want to replicate race intensity in my training.  If you want to race hard, you need to replicate that same intensity in your training.  I know what my splits have been, but I want some more data to go with the timing.  I am still planning on racing without being aware of my Garmin, at least for the sprints.  

I am pretty interested in everyone else's approach to training and racing.  Does any of this ring a bell to you?  What do you measure or go by?  

Thanks for reading!